Comments

Only congress shall
not favor or disfavor (be a respector of) a particular religion.

Our
founding fathers had no problem with endorsement or encouragement.

This is clearly a violation of first amendments rights, Both religious and
speech.

And By the way, Religious speech has EVERY RIGHT to be in
the public square.

Otherwise you would be giving preferential
treatment or denying rights to certain groups, organizations and individuals.

Government interfering in religion and speech is the exact reason for
the first amendment.

People expressing their religion and religious
speech in a public forum, like a school, is NOT prohibited, nor was that ever
intended, again just look at how the founding fathers and early congresses, and
early american society practiced the first amendment.

You will then
understand how radical (and wrong) the change has been.

And also the
founding father NEVER considered schools to be the government (they were local
community institutions), and in any case, the amendment applies ONLY to
congress.

the truthHolladay, UT

Oct. 18, 2012 6:32 p.m.

@Steve C. Warren

He's wrong.

There is nothing
prohibiting the state endorsement of religion.

Only congress shall
not favor or disfavor (be a respector of) a particular religion.

Our
founding fathers had no problem with endorsement or encouragement.

This is clearly a violation of first amendments rights, Both religious and
speech.

And By the way, Religious speech has EVERY RIGHT to be in
the public square.

Otherwise you would be giving preferential
treatment or denying rights to certain groups, organizations and individuals.

Government interfering in religion and speech is the exact reason for
the first amendment.

People expressing their religion and religious
speech in a public forum, like a school, is NOT prohibited, nor was that ever
intended, again just look at how the founding fathers and early congresses, and
early american society practiced the first amendment.

You will then
understand how radical (and wrong) the change has been.

And also the
founding father NEVER considered schools to be the government (they were local
community institutions), and in any case, the amendment applies ONLY to
congress.

Steve C. WarrenWEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Oct. 18, 2012 11:26 a.m.

In the interest of good journalism, it's too bad the article couldn't
have included some statements by those who support the ban.

This
sentence ran in a longer version of the article: "But the school
district’s attorney, Tom Brandt, said the U.S. Constitution’s
establishment clause prevents the state endorsement of religion and appears to
trump state law." He's right. The banners are state endorsement of
religion because the cheerleaders--like the coaches and players--represent the
school.

lost in DCWest Jordan, UT

Oct. 18, 2012 10:12 a.m.

By prohibiting the banners, the government IS creating legislation concerning
religion. The prohibition removes the neutrality required by the first
amendment and denies the free expression guaranteed thereby.

The
banners do not constitute governmentally sanctioned religious activity. To
claim they do is pure hogwash.

Furry1993Ogden, UT

Oct. 18, 2012 7:30 a.m.

There is no “ongoing onslaught” on religious expression and no
attempt to limit religious expression in Constitutionally-appropriate places
(i.e., where there is no government involvement). The cheerleaders and
football players in question could have held a private rally outside of school
grounds (not authorized or approved by the school which is a de facto government
authority) and the Constitution would not be implicated. The problem comes from
the fact that the school, by its actions, gives the appearance of approving one
form of religion over any others (in other words, the school's actions
establishes a religion as the preferred religion in violation of the First
Amendment Establishment Clause). Nothing is restricting free exercise of
religion; just that it can't be done pursuant to school (government)
approval.

To the people who want to see this or any other
governmentally-sanctioned religious activity permitted -- which religion(s)
should be permitted and which ones should not be permitted? Protestant?
Catholic? Evangelical? LDS? Jewish? Muslim? Wiccan? Satanism? [Name any
other religion?] And wahat about the people who do not believe in God or are
not decided? How should that be decided?